The document evaluates the English undergraduate program at Taiz University in Yemen. It provides an overview of the program structure and content, identifying several weaknesses. The program has not been updated in 21 years and contains an imbalance between language/skills courses and literature courses. It focuses heavily on British literature and lacks relevance to students' professional needs. An online survey of recent graduates finds the program did not adequately prepare them for their current jobs. Recommendations are made to revise the program content and structure to improve relevance and prepare students better for the job market.

1. 1
Evaluation of an English Undergraduate Program
Dr. Gibreel Sadeq Alaghbary
Assistant Professor of English
Taiz University, Yemen
Abstract
The quality of university education is a national concern.
Inadvertently, or by design as it may be, university education in
Yemen is losing credibility and relevance. Our certification is not
much valued by employers and our programs are delinked from
professional requirements, the result being internal defeat and external
skepticism. This paper offers an evaluation of one of the programs
offered by Taiz University. The current English undergraduate
program at the Faculty of Arts is about twenty one years old and there
has been little attempt on the part of faculty or administration to update
the program content or revise the program structure. The present
evaluation attempt is both qualitative and quantitative. The program is
examined in detail in order to uncover its strengths and weaknesses
with regard to the program content and program structure. This
qualitative analysis is informed by the researcher’s insider knowledge
of the current program, and is backed up by a quantitative analysis of
an online survey targeting program completers in the past three years,
i.e. 2009 to 2012. The findings of the qualitative and quantitative
evaluation of the current program inform the recommendations made
for the program designers and program executors.
Introduction
A university is a place where orthodoxies are challenged, where innovative thinking
is encouraged and where new paradigms are formulated. As such, universities should
continually update their programs to remain relevant and to maintain their youth
empowerment role.
Since its inception in 1991, the English undergraduate program at the Faculty of Arts,
Taiz University (henceforth TU) has undergone no major revision. The program is about
twenty one years old and there has been little attempt on the part of faculty or administration
to update the program content or revise the program structure.
The department offers a four-year program upon completion of which a student is
awarded a Bachelor Degree in English Language and Literature. To qualify for admission
into the program, a student should be holding a General Secondary Education Certificate
with an overall grade of at least 70% (grades subject to change every year). After meeting
this condition, the candidates appear for an English Admission Test. The test, written by a

2. 2
teaching staff of the department, takes up where high school English classes left off and takes
into consideration the minimum English proficiency level required by the undergraduate
program of instruction. The number of students admitted into the program is determined by
the incoming capacity of the department which is, surprisingly, a decision not of the English
Department Council but of the University Council of Student Affairs. The test cut-off score
is 50 but students are selected in accordance with the department seating capacity regardless
of the cu-off score. In almost all admission test sessions more than half the students admitted
scored below the cut-off score. What this means is that the admitted students are
heterogeneous in terms of their linguistic ability and do not all meet the admission
requirements set by the department.
This incoherent group of students meets at least six times a week for eight semesters
each lasting three months. In order to graduate, they have to pass a total of 52 courses offered
by the department. Twenty one of these courses are on literature, eleven on language skills,
eight on linguistics, four on translation, one on research methodology and seven are non-
English courses. Frequent cries of dissatisfaction with the program structure and content
from both students and faculty are the main drive behind the program evaluation attempted in
this paper.
Objectives of the Study
The present investigation is an attempt to provide answers to the following questions:
1. What are the current program strengths and weaknesses with regard to the program
content and program structure?
2. What is the program completers’ assessment of the current program with regard to the
language requirements of their current professions?
3. What revisions can be suggested to enhance the relevance of the current program
content and structure to the professional language requirements of the program
participants?
Methodology of Evaluation
The evaluation of the current English undergraduate program proceeds at two levels.
The program is examined in detail in order to lay bare its strengths and weaknesses with
regard to the program content and structure. This qualitative analysis is informed by the
researcher’s insider knowledge of the current program, and is backed up by a quantitative
analysis of an online survey targeting program completers in the past three years.

3. 3
The Qualitative Evaluation
The qualitative evaluation aims at providing a detailed description of the current
program structure and content. The courses on offer will be grouped according to their
thematic relatedness and their content spelled out as and when required. The program
structure will therefore be detailed under five groups, viz., the language skills courses, the
literature courses, the linguistics courses, the other English courses, and the non-English
courses. After presenting the description of the program structure and content, the researcher
lists the program drawbacks which necessitate program revision.
The Quantitative Evaluation
The sample. The study targets program completers during the years 2009 and 2012.
The research population is 240 and the sample size is 70, constituting around 30% of the
population. The survey is published online because the survey targets (program completers
during the past three years) are difficult to reach, especially in the absence of a university
alumni system in the specific research context.
The instrument. The online survey has two sections. The first section of the survey
elicits information on the program completers’ graduation year and current occupation. The
second section constitutes the core of the survey and elicits the program completers’
evaluation of the program in relation to their current job language requirements. This section
lists all the courses on offer (a total of 52 courses) and the respondents are asked to rate them
as either not relevant at all, slightly relevant, adequately relevant or very much relevant to the
language demands of their current profession (cf. Appendix B).
The face and content validity of the online survey have been established via a panel
of teachers involved in executing the current program. The feedback on the items relevance
and on the representativeness of survey items has been considered in producing the final
version of the survey.
After presenting the findings of the program evaluation carried out by the researcher
and the program completers’ evaluation of the program, the final recommendations of the
study are listed for the benefit of program designers and program executors.
Procedure of evaluation. The program completers’ responses to each component of
the current program are analyzed to determine the average mean of frequency and average
mean of percentage for each ordered choice. The weighted average and relative importance
for each course on the program are also calculated. The components of the program with the
lowest weighted average and relative importance, thus requiring intervention, are presented

4. 4
first, and the components with the highest weighted average and relative importance which
require little intervention figure last in the discussion below.
The Current Program
Program Structure
The current program contains 52 courses: 14 courses in the first year, 14 in the
second, 12 in the third and 12 in the fourth. The number of English courses is 45, and the
remaining 7 are non-English courses (cf. Appendix 1). The following table provides a more
detailed overview of the program structure.
Table 1
An Overview of the Current Program Structure: Number of Courses Offered
Year Language Translation Research Linguistics Literature Non-
English
Total
First 6 -- -- -- 3 5 14
Second 4 2 -- 3 3 2 14
Third -- 1 1 3 7 -- 12
Fourth 1 1 -- 2 8 -- 12
Total 11 4 1 8 21 7 52
As shown by the table, the program has a heavy concentration of literature courses,
which constitute more than 40% of the courses offered – a dominance that is perhaps
explained by the department affiliation to the Faculty of Arts. In the first two years, only 6
literature courses are offered compared to 15 in the last two years. In comparison, the first
two years offer 10 language courses, compared to only 1 in the last two years. A plausible
explanation for this course arrangement is that the first two years aim at improving the
students’ language skills before they are introduced to literature. This may also explain why
the translation, linguistics and research classes are introduced from the second year onward.
The non-English courses, it may be noted, are all introduced in the first two years, which
may be rationalized by the ‘preparatory’ nature of the first two years.
Program Content
The language skills courses. The current program offers a total of 11 language
courses (about 21% of the courses offered). Ten of these courses are offered in the first two

5. 5
years and only one in the last two years, specifically in the first semester of the final year.
The language courses offered in the first year are Reading and Composition (I and II),
Spoken English (I and II), and English Grammar (I and II). The second year offers Reading
and Composition (III and IV) and English Usage (I and II). The one course offered in the
final year is Advanced Writing Skills.
The four Reading and Composition courses aim to introduce the students to different
types of texts like narrative, descriptive, expository and argumentative texts. They also aim to
help the students acquire reading skills like scanning and skimming and writing skills like
summarizing long texts and expanding short statements. The two Spoken English courses
aim to engage the students in communicative tasks and language functions and introduce
them to different accents of English. The two Grammar courses are graded. Grammar I is
remedial and consolidates prior knowledge of grammar acquired at the school level, while
Grammar II introduces ‘new’ grammar points. The Usage courses also introduce grammar
like the relative clause and the articles but focus on the notion of appropriateness beside
grammatical correctness.
The linguistics courses. The linguistics courses offered are 8, constituting over 15%
of the total courses on offer. No linguistics courses are offered in the first year. The second
year offers three courses, viz. Introduction to Language (I and II) and History of English
Language. The first two courses aim at developing in the students an analytical awareness of
how language operates. The first of these two courses introduces elementary phonetics and
phonology and basic concepts in semantics, while the second course introduces basic
concepts in morphology and syntax. The third course aims at “making the students aware of
the important phonological, syntactic and semantic changes that have taken place from old
English through Middle English to Modern English”.
The third year also offers three linguistics courses. These are English Morphology
and Syntax, Sociolinguistics, and Stylistics. The first course aims at creating an analytical
awareness of English morphology and syntax, the second at introducing basic concepts in
sociolinguistics and the third at introducing theories of style and sample stylistic analyses.
The last two linguistics courses (Topics in Applied Linguistics and Semantics) are
offered in the second semester of the fourth year. In the first course, the students apply their
knowledge of language and linguistics to practical problems in language teaching. The
second course introduces basic concepts in semantics and presents “a standard but eclectic
view of modern semantics”.

6. 6
The literature courses. The literature courses offered are 21, constituting more than
40% of the total number of courses. In the first year, three courses are offered (Introduction
to Literary Forms, Language through Literature, and Short Story). The first of these courses
introduces the literary genres and the figures of speech, the second focuses on “the elegance
in the use of language in literature”, while the third focuses on the structural and rhetorical
aspects of selected short stories. The second year offers three more literature courses, viz.
18th
-century English Novel (which focuses on the characteristics of English fiction in the 18th
century), Survey of English Literature (which gives a historical perspective of English
literature), and Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (which aims to give a critical awareness of
drama written in this period of time). The remaining 15 courses are offered in the final two
years. All the courses offered (cf. Appendix A) aim to give a critical and historical awareness
of the literature written in a particular period of time. Two of these courses are on Novel,
three on Poetry, three on Drama (one of which also offers poetry), two on American
Literature, two on the historical development of Criticism, one on Literary Text Analysis,
one on World Literature and the final course is one Comparative Literature.
The other English courses. The current program offers five other English courses
(four on translation and one on research methods). The four translation courses offer graded
training in the techniques of translation, graded exposure to texts of different lengths and
graded exposure to topic ranging from general interest to legal and scientific. The one course
on research methods introduces the students to the process of producing a research paper,
starting from selecting a topic and ending with producing the final draft.
The non-English courses. The current program also offers seven non-English
courses, all of which are offered in the first two years. Five of these courses (Arabic
Language I and II, French Language I and II, and Islamic Culture) are introduced in the first
year, while the remaining two courses (Arabic Language III and IV) are introduced in the
second year. The content of these courses is determined not by the department of English but
by the course instructors who belong to other departments of the university. Generally, the
content is introductory and supplements the linguistic, and critical, concepts introduced in
English.
Disadvantages of the Current Program
1. Only two Spoken classes are offered by the current program. It is difficult to cram all
speaking skills, language functions and immersion situations into these two courses
and even more difficult to give individual attention to the students in order to

7. 7
improve their fluency. Besides, the absence of separate tutorial classes to focus on
accuracy means that the spoken classes will take care of both accuracy and fluency,
which will cut into the time specified for fluency and considerably reduces the
amount of time to be allocated for individual speakers. In addition, introducing the
dialects of English at this stage (in the first year) is inappropriate. The students are
still struggling with the basics of English pronunciation and the introduction of
dialects will lead to more confusion than appreciation.
2. The skills of reading and composition are offered in the same courses, four of them.
Although this may sound like presenting language in a life-like format, the mixing of
skills will eat into the time for each skill.
3. The current program offers two courses on grammar and two on usage. These courses
repeat themselves and, judging by the course description, introduce grammar in a
discrete-point fashion.
4. Introducing the History of English Language and the “changes that have taken place
from Old English through Middle English to Modern English” in the second year
when the students are still struggling with the basics of English linguistics is
inappropriate. The course will only complicate the students’ problems and may even
turn them off linguistics. This course is more appropriate with students “studying”
language than with students “learning” it (Widdowson, 1985).
5. The basic concepts of Morphology and Syntax and Sociolinguistics have already
been introduced by the second year introductory courses to linguistics. The third year
courses will therefore either repeat the introductory courses, which is unnecessary, or
introduce more advanced concepts in the field, which is inappropriate in the present
context.
6. The current program is characterized by a heavy tilt towards literature, with the
literature courses forming more than 40% of the courses on offer.
7. The Short Story course is introduced early (in the first year) when the students are
still struggling with less figurative and less extended discourses.
8. The content of the literature concentration of the current program is obviously Anglo-
centric. This Anglo-centricity reflects itself not only in the choice of courses (half of
the courses offered are on British literature) but also on the chronological
arrangement of these courses on the syllabus. The courses start from the 16th
century
and move forward in time till the 20th
century. There is also a course that surveys
English literature right from before Chaucer till the 20th
century. The concern of these

8. 8
courses is the literature and culture of England, or indeed the cultural heritage of
England – a concern which is obviously at odds with the learning objectives of non-
native speaking learners of English. This Anglo-centric approach is more appropriate
in first language contexts and in more advanced stages of English education. It may
be noted that the two courses on American literature and the one course on World
literature serve only to highlight the concern of the program with Anglo-centricity.
9. The chronologically progressive, period-based arrangement of courses also presents
extra linguistic difficulty. The texts belonging to the Old English or Middle English
periods will present unfamiliar English at a stage when the students are still
struggling with familiar English.
10. The course on Literary Text Analysis is dispensable. If the text analysis will be made
using stylistic approaches, the course on stylistics will suffice. If the analysis will be
made using other critical approaches, the course on critical approaches offered in the
final year suffices.
11. The course on the history of criticism from Aristotle to Arnold is also dispensable.
The content of this course could be covered under the course on critical approaches
offered in the last year.
12. The current program offers a course on research methods but does not offer a sequel
course where this theoretical knowledge of research methodology could be put in
practice.
13. The program offers four courses on Arabic. Two courses, one surveying Arabic
Literature and the other Arabic Linguistics, could suffice.
14. The course on Islamic Culture is also dispensable because it is not seen to serve any
purpose related to the program objectives.
15. The introduction of the two courses on French in the first year is inappropriate. It is
thought best not to introduce another foreign language in the first year when the
students are still struggling with the basics of English.
The Findings of the Online Survey
The non-English courses in the program (the Arabic and French courses) have the
lowest mean weighted average (2.13) and mean relative importance (0.53) in the entire
program. These courses are estimated to be the least relevant to the program completers’
professional requirements. The response ‘Not relevant at all’, for example, has a mean
frequency more than twice as high as that of the response ‘Very much relevant’, which

9. 9
reflects that the respondents’ evaluation of the relevance of these courses to their job
demands (Table 2).
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Program Completers’ Responses to the Non-English Courses
Component
Not relevant
at all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Weighted
average
Relative
Importance
F P% F P% F P% F P%
Islamic Culture 33 47.14 12 17.14 12 17.14 13 18.57 2.07 0.52
Arabic Language I 20 28.57 16 22.86 18 25.71 16 22.86 2.43 0.61
French Language I 29 41.43 19 27.14 9 12.86 13 18.57 2.09 0.52
Arabic Language II 30 42.86 17 24.29 13 18.57 10 14.29 2.04 0.51
French Language II 31 44.29 20 28.57 11 15.71 8 11.43 1.94 0.49
Arabic Language III 27 38.57 19 27.14 14 20.00 10 14.29 2.10 0.53
Arabic Language IV 25 35.71 20 28.57 9 12.86 16 22.86 2.23 0.56
MEAN 27.86 39.80 17.57 25.10 12.29 17.55 12.29 17.55 2.13 0.53
The literature component of the program is the second least relevant in the program
completers’ estimation. It has a mean weighted average of 2.27, which falls between ‘slightly
relevant’ and ‘adequately relevant’, and a mean relative importance of 0.57. These figures
indicate that the literature component of the program is not much relevant to the program
completers’ professional requirements and are not regarded as important by the program
completers. Of the 21 courses which make up the literature component of the program,
eleven courses have a weighted average below 2 and a relative importance of 0.50 and below
(Table 3). These courses are regarded as irrelevant to the program completers’ professional
requirements. With more than 50% of the courses on the literature component having a
relative importance of 0.50 or less and with 2.73 recorded as the highest weighted average
for a course on the literature component, it can be safely concluded that the this component
of the program is not regarded by the program completers as much relevant to the demands
of their profession.

10. 10
Table 3
Descriptive Statistics of Program Completers’ Responses to the Literature Component
Not relevant
at all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Weighted
average
Relative
Importance
F P% F P% F P% F P%
Introduction to
Literary Forms
23 32.86 21 30.00 10 14.29 16 22.86
2.27 0.57
Language through
Literature
13 18.57 15 21.43 20 28.57 22 31.43
2.73 0.68
Short Story 25 35.71 14 20.00 16 22.86 15 21.43 2.30 0.58
18th
h Century English
Novel
29 41.43 22 31.43 10 14.29 9 12.86
1.99 0.50
Survey of English
Literature
39 55.71 21 30.00 6 8.57 4 5.71
1.64 0.41
Drama (Elizabethan-
Jacobean)
32 45.71 20 28.57 7 10.00 11 15.71
1.96 0.49
Metaphysical and
Augustan Poetry
36 51.43 16 22.86 8 11.43 10 14.29
1.89 0.47
19th
Century English
Novel
35 50.00 19 27.14 6 8.57 10 14.29
1.87 0.47
Shakespeare 38 54.29 11 15.71 10 14.29 11 15.71 1.91 0.48
Romantic Poetry 36 51.43 13 18.57 12 17.14 9 12.86 1.91 0.48
Analysis of Literary
Texts
28 40.00 20 28.57 6 8.57 16 22.86
2.14 0.54
18th Century Poetry
and Drama
36 51.43 17 24.29 9 12.86 8 11.43
1.84 0.46
Literary Criticism
(Aristotle to Arnold)
47 67.14 18 25.71 2 2.86 3 4.29
1.44 0.36
20th
Century English
Poetry
35 50.00 16 22.86 11 15.71 8 11.43
1.89 0.47
20th Century English
Drama
40 57.14 18 25.71 5 7.14 7 10.00
1.70 0.43
19th Century
American Literature
26 37.14 9 12.86 17 24.29 18 25.71
2.39 0.60
Comparative
Literature
27 38.57 17 24.29 12 17.14 14 20.00
2.19 0.55
20th Century English
Novel
30 42.86 15 21.43 11 15.71 14 20.00
2.13 0.53
World Literature 26 37.14 7 10.00 16 22.86 21 30.00 2.46 0.61
20th Century
American Literature
22 31.43 12 17.14 19 27.14 17 24.29
2.44 0.61
Critical Approaches
to literature
33 47.14 10 14.29 15 21.43 12 17.14
2.09 0.52
MEAN 31.24 344.6 15.76 22.52 10.86 15.51 12.14 17.35 2.27 0.57

11. 11
The linguistic component of the program has a relatively higher mean weighted
average (2.60) and mean relative importance (0.65). This component tilts towards the
‘adequately relevant’ response. All the courses in this component have a weighted average of
above 2.50 and a relative importance higher than 0.50, the only exception being the History
of English Language course (Table 4). This particular course has the lowest weighted
average in the entire program and so is the least relevant to the program completers’
professional requirements.
Table 4
Descriptive Statistics of Program Completers’ Responses to the Linguistics Component
The translation and research methods courses, which together make up the Other
English Courses component, have almost the same mean weighted average (2.85 and 2.84,
respectively). All the courses in this component have a weighed average higher than 2 and a
relative importance higher than 0.50, which indicates adequate relevance to the program
completers’ professional requirements (Tables 5and 6).
Not relevant at
all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Weighted
average
Relative
Importan
F P% F P% F P% F P%
Introduction to
Language I
13 18.57 16 22.86 29 41.43 12 17.14 2.57 0.64
Introduction to
Language II
15 21.43 14 20.00 21 30.00 20 28.57 2.66 0.66
History of English
Language
41 58.57 19 27.14 5 7.14 5 7.14 1.63 0.41
English
Morphology and
Syntax
14 20.00 16 22.86 16 22.86 24 34.29 2.71 0.68
Sociolinguistics 13 18.57 19 27.14 18 25.71 20 28.57 2.64 0.66
Stylistics 12 17.14 13 18.57 17 24.29 28 40.00 2.87 0.72
Topics in Applied
Linguistics
15 21.43 11 15.71 15 21.43 29 41.43 2.83 0.71
Semantics 9 12.86 16 22.86 21 30.00 24 34.29 2.86 0.71
MEAN 16.5 23.57 15.5 22.14 17.75 25.36 20.25 28.93 2.60 0.65

12. 12
Table 5
Descriptive Statistics of Program Completers’ Responses to the Translation Courses
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics of Program Completers’ Responses to the Research Methods Course
Not
relevant at
all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Weighted
average
Relative
Importance
F P% F P% F P% F P%
Research Methods 11 15.71 14 20.00 20 28.57 25 35.71 2.84 0.71
The last component of the program is the language skills component. Almost all the
courses in this component have a weighted average of 3 and above and a relative importance
of 0.75 and above. The mean weighted average for the component is 3.22, which falls
between ‘adequately relevant’ and ‘very much relevant’, and the mean relative importance is
0.81. With 3.50 recorded as the highest weighted average for a course in this component and
with 0.88 recorded as the highest relative importance for a course, it can be concluded with
little doubt that this component is the most relevant to the program completers’ professional
requirements (Table 7).
Not relevant
at all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Weighted
average
Relative
Importance
F P% F P% F P% F P%
Translation I 10 14.29 14 20.00 19 27.14 27 38.57
2.9
0.73
Translation II 13 18.57 15 21.43 17 24.29 25 35.71 2.77 0.69
Translation III 10 14.29 16 22.86 19 27.14 25 35.71 2.84 0.71
Advanced Translation 12 17.14 12 17.14 17 24.29 29 41.43 2.90 0.73
MEAN 11.25 16.07 14.25 20.36 18 25.71 26.5 37.86 2.85 0.71

13. 13
Table 7
Descriptive Statistics of Program Completers’ Responses to the Language Skills Component
Not relevant
at all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Weighted
average
Relative
Importanc
e
F P% F P% F P% F P%
Reading and
Composition I
6 8.57 7 10.00 22 31.43 35 50.00 3.23 0.81
Spoken English I 4 5.71 8 11.43 15 21.43 43 61.43 3.39 0.85
English Grammar I 7 10 10 14.29 15 21.43 38 54.29 3.20 0.80
Reading and
Composition II
10 14.29 9 12.86 27 38.57 34 48.57 3.50 0.88
Spoken English II 5 7.14 7 10.00 14 20.00 44 62.86 3.39 0.85
English Grammar II 8 11.43 9 12.86 12 17.14 41 58.57 3.23 0.81
Reading and
Composition III
9 12.86 7 10.00 19 27.14 35 50.00 3.14 0.79
English Usage I 9 12.86 10 14.29 20 28.57 31 44.29 3.04 0.76
Reading and
Composition IV
11 15.71 10 14.29 18 25.71 31 44.29 2.99 0.75
English Usage II 10 14.29 10 14.29 22 31.43 28 40.00 2.97 0.74
Advanced Writing
Skills
5 7.14 7 10.00 16 22.86 42 60.00 3.36 0.84
MEAN 7.64 10.91 8.55 12.21 18.18 25.97 36.55 52.21 3.22 0.81
Recommendations for Program Designers and Executors
On The Non-English Component
1. The highest weighted average for a course in this component is as low as 2.43 and
the lowest is below 2. The courses on this component need immediate intervention.
2. The Arabic courses should be reduced by two and their content amended so they map
out Arabic linguistics and literature. This should give the participants a critical
outlook with which to approach the learning of English language and literature, and
make the courses relevant to the overall program objective.
3. The French courses should be delayed till the graduation year for at least three
reasons. First, it is thought best not to introduce another foreign language in the first
year when the students are still struggling with English. Secondly, the students will
have reached a level of proficiency in English and competence in language analysis

14. 14
that allows them to learn and appreciate French in a better way. Thirdly, the students’
knowledge of French would be fresh after graduation and may well come in handy at
the workplace. .
On The Literature Component
1. This is the largest component of the program, constituting over 40% of the total
number of courses on offer. The weighted average and relative importance of this
component, however, are the second lowest, second only to the non-English
component. The courses on this component are not regarded as relevant to the
program completers’ professional requirements; hence the need for revision.
2. The exclusive concern with canonical texts and the chronological arrangement of the
literature courses reflect an Anglo-centricity inappropriate for the present context.
This Anglo-centric orientation is more appropriate with English native-speaking
undergraduates than with non-native learners of English language and literature.
Accordingly, the arrangement of the courses on the syllabus should be based on
linguistic rather than historical criteria, and the content of these courses should
include any text, canonical or non-canonical, written in English.
3. The courses with the lowest weighted average, viz. Survey of English Literature and
Literary Criticism, should be replaced by courses which contribute more directly to
the participants’ learning objectives.
4. Exposure to language in use should expand to include non-literary discourses beside
the literary discourse. It is therefore recommended that the program introduces at
least two Non-literary discourse Analysis courses which cover analysis of media,
political, legal, sport and commercial texts.
5. Non-fiction should also be introduced so that the participant’s are encouraged to
investigate real-world contemporary issues such as the war on terror, nuclear
armament and the changing world order.
On The Linguistics Component
1. All the courses in this component, save the History of English Language, have a
weighted average of 2.5 and above. The History of English Language course is not
considered relevant by the program completers and should be left out of the program.
The other courses should be retained.

15. 15
2. It is recommended that the Topics in Applied Linguistics course be repeated in the
second semester of the graduation year. The objective is teacher preparation and
topics to cover in the two modules include language acquisition and language
learning, methods of teaching, materials production, curriculum design, language
testing, and learner psychology. These two courses should be introduced in the
graduation year because many students of the department take up teaching posts after
graduation and the knowledge of language pedagogy offered by these courses will
remain fresh in the students’ minds after graduation.
On The Other English Courses Component
1. All the courses in this component have a weighted average of above 2.7 and are
judged relevant to the program completers’ professional requirements. All the
courses should therefore be retained.
2. It is recommended that the course on Research Methodology be moved to the first
semester of the final year and a new ‘Graduation Project’ course introduced as a
sequel in the second semester where theoretical concept may be put into practice.
On The Language Skills Component
1. All the courses in this component have high weighted average and relative
importance and are therefore considered the most relevant to the program completers’
professional language requirements. All these courses should be retained but some
minor revisions may be suggested to further enhance the relevance of these courses.
2. The four courses on Reading and Composition should be split into their component
skills of Reading and Writing. By multiplying the number of courses, the instructors
will have more time to focus on the relevant skills and the students will get more time
to practise these skills. These additions should enhance the students’ language
proficiency, particularly their reading skills and writing proficiency.
3. The Grammar courses should be combined with the Usage courses so they become
Grammar and Usage. This will ensure that grammar is not presented in a discrete-
point fashion but instead in extended discourse and context, and in accordance with
the dictates of communicative approaches to language teaching.
4. The Spoken classes should be split into Tutorials and Language Production classes.
The Language Tutorials will supplement the Language Production classes by
focusing on accuracy. The participants get individualized attention and sufficient

16. 16
practice in sound identification and production, while their language fluency is taken
care of in the Language Production classes.
On the Program Structure and Content
1. The number of courses offered each year should be evened out, preferably 6 every
semester.
2. The language courses should be offered in the first two years as preparation for
subsequent textual analysis
3. No literature courses should be offered in the first two years, when the participants
are still struggling with less fictional text worlds. The first two years aim to enhance
the students’ English proficiency and serve to sharpen their analytical awareness of
the structure and operation of the different levels of language organization. In this
way, the students are better prepared to take on language in actual use, literary and
non-literary, and more likely to benefit maximally from these courses.
4. The ‘learning’ of literature should be introduced in the first semester of the third year.
The ‘study’ of literature may be initiated in the first semester of the graduation year
when the participants have had enough training in language-based approaches to
literature. In other words, the learning of literature should come first as a precondition
for subsequent study. This comes in line with the previous recommendation that the
language and linguistics courses are introduced before the literature courses
5. The current program should be revised so that its concern is the ‘learning’ not ‘study’
of literature (Widdowson, 1985) and the methodology in literature classes starting
from text selection to testing adapted accordingly.
Conclusion
The qualitative evaluation of the undergraduate program revealed the literature
component of the program is Anglo-centric in focus, the language component relevant but
disorderly, the linguistics component and the translation sub-component relevant but
repetitive, the non-English component overrepresented, and the research sub-component
underrepresented. The findings of the qualitative analysis refined the findings of the
qualitative analysis. The non-English and literature components are judged to be the least
relevant to the program completers’ professional language requirements. The other
components showed varying degrees of relevance, with the language skills component
ranked ‘the most relevant’ and the other English courses, viz.translation and research

17. 17
methods, ranked second most important. In short, it may be concluded that the literature
component needs change of focus from Anglo-centricity to language simplicity; the language
component needs course re-arrangement, course fusion and division; the linguistics
component needs enrichment; the translation sub-component needs content revision; the
non-English component needs reduction; and the research component needs accretion.
References
Al-Maitami, M. (2007, June 22). Education as a strategic deterrent in a backward society
(Yemen as a case). Retrieved October 10, 2012, from
http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/econ/maitami3.htm
Al Maleh, L. (2005). English literature and Arab students. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 9
(1), 269-276. Retrieved October 24, 2012, from
http://www.rapidintellect.com/AEQweb/6sep2948w5.htm
Amer, A. A. (2003). Teaching EFL/ESL literature. The Reading Matrix, 3 (2), 63-73.
Retrieved October 10, 2012, from
http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/amer/article.pdf
Brumfit, C. J. (Ed.). (1983). Teaching literature overseas: language-based approaches.
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Education Encyclopeadia. (n.d.). Yemen Educational System – Overview. Retrieved
December 09, 2012, from
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1695/Yemen.html
McKay, S. (1986). Literature in the ESL classroom. In C. Brumfit & R. Carter (Eds.),
Literature and language teaching. (pp. 191-198). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moody, H. L. B. (1971). The teaching of literature in developing countries. London:
LongmanShort, M. (Ed.). (1989). Reading, analysing and teaching literature.
London: Longman.
Showalter, E. (2003a). Teaching literature. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Showalter, E. (2003b). What teaching literature should really mean. Chronicle of Higher
Education, 49 (19). Retrieved March 10, 2007, from the Academic Search Premier
Database.
Widdowson, H. G. (1985). The teaching, learning and study of literature. In C. Brumfit (Ed.),
Language and Literature Teaching: From Practice to Principle. (pp. 180-194).
London: Pergamon Press Ltd.

18. 18
APPENDIX A
CURRENT SYLLABUS CONTENT
FIRST YEAR
First Semester Second Semester
Course Name (and Description) Code Course Name (and Description) Code
Reading and Composition I 101 Reading and Composition II 105
Spoken English I 102 Spoken English II 106
English Grammar I 103 English Grammar II 107
Introduction to Literary Forms 104 Language through Literature 108
Islamic Culture Short Story 109
Arabic Language I Arabic Language II
French Language I French Language II
SECOND YEAR
Reading and Composition III 201 Reading and Composition IV 207
English Usage I 202 English Usage II 208
18th
Century English Novel 203 Drama (Elizabethan-Jacobean) 209
Introduction to Language I 204 Introduction to Language II 210
Survey of English Literature 205 History of English Language 211
Translation I 206 Translation II 212
Arabic Language III Arabic Language IV
THIRD YEAR
Metaphysical and Augustan Poetry 301 Romantic Poetry 307
19th
Century English Novel 302 Analysis of Literary Texts 308
English Morphology and Syntax 303 18th
Century Poetry and Drama 309
Research Methods 304
Literary Criticism (Aristotle to
Arnold)
310
Shakespeare 305 Translation III 311
Sociolinguistics 306 Stylistics 312
FOURTH YEAR
Advanced Writing Skills 401 20th Century English Novel 407
20th
Century English Poetry 402 Topics in Applied Linguistics 408
20th
Century English Drama 403 Semantics 409
19th
Century American Literature 404 World Literature 410
Comparative Literature 405 20th
Century American Literature 411
Advanced Translation 406 Critical Approaches 412

19. 19
APPENDIX B
Program Completers’ Online Survey
This survey seeks to elicit background information on your graduate education and your work
history since graduation. It also seeks to elicit your opinion on the effectiveness of the
English undergraduate program and its relevance to the demands of your current job.
1. I am
□ male
□ female
2. When did you finish your undergraduate education?
□ July 2012
□ July 2011
□ July 2010
□ July 2009
3. Are you currently employed?
□ Yes
□ No
3. What is the nature of your job?
□ Administrative
□ Teaching
□ Translation
□ Freelancer
□ Other. Please specify ………………………………………………………………….
4. How would you rate the relevance of the courses on the program to the demands of
your current job?
Not relevant
at all
Slightly
relevant
Adequately
relevant
Very much
relevant
Reading and Composition I
Spoken English I
English Grammar I
Introduction to Literary Forms
Islamic Culture
Arabic Language I
French Language I
Reading and Composition II

20. 20
Spoken English II
English Grammar II
Language through Literature
Short Story
Arabic Language II
French Language II
Reading and Composition III
English Usage I
18th
Century English Novel
Introduction to Language I
Survey of English Literature
Translation I
Arabic Language III
Reading and Composition IV
English Usage II
Drama (Elizabethan-Jacobean)
Introduction to Language II
History of English Language
Translation II
Arabic Language IV
Metaphysical and Augustan Poetry
19th
Century English Novel
English Morphology and Syntax
Research Methods
Shakespeare
Sociolinguistics
Romantic Poetry
Analysis of Literary Texts
18th
Century Poetry and Drama
Literary Criticism (Aristotle to
Arnold)
Translation III
Stylistics
Advanced Writing Skills
20th
Century English Poetry
20th
Century English Drama
19th
Century American Literature
Comparative Literature
Advanced Translation
20th Century English Novel
Topics in Applied Linguistics
Semantics
World Literature
20th
Century American Literature
Critical Approaches to literature